ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0¥H 0Dí U:1 0Jk 0Tµ 0^ 0hg 0rÏ 0|A 0†½ 0C 1uÓ 0dH B¬U>ÉB)DC0U*s AMàê D3Ê~ýe{ 0@àv~ vÓž AOqÆÀ 0D† D/Ê Bù˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ åEæçèéêëìEíîÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x÷(U(2ð„$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÔ€ XðçXXXÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd< Œ 9p`(Arial€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌApril€24,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó""""'ÿÿdxd tÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€'ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Rigney€later€recanted€this€estimation€in€his€written€statement€to€theÏpolice.€€In€his€written€statement,€he€claimed€that€his€part€amounted€to€betweenÏ$8,000€and€$10,000.Ì [Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€'ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€òòSeeóó€Op.€Attððy€Gen.€91„96€(1991)€for€a€discussion€of€proper€sentencingÏcredits€to€be€applied€toward€jail€time€during€split€confinement.€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑßR€()&A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òNO.€01C01„9605„CC„00212Ìó óà àAppellee,à@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òCOFFEE€COUNTYÌVS.ó óà@ à)Ìà@ à)à àò òHon.€€Gerald€L.€Ewell,ÏJudgeÌœJEFFERY›€L.€RIGNEY€andó óà@ à)Ìò òHERMAN€EUGENE€HALE,ó óà@ à)à àò ò(Sentencing€„€Theft€ofÌó óà@ à)ò òà àProperty€Over€$1,000)ó óÌà àAppellants.à@ à)ÌÌÌÌòòò òFOR€APPELLANT€RIGNEYóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJEFFREY€K.€SECKLERà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.ÏBURSONó óÌSeckler,€Bramlett€&€Durardà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ724€North€Main€StreetÌP.O.€Box€967à àà àà àà àà àò òMERRILYN€FEIRMAN€(brief)ó óÌShelbyville,€TN€37160ò ò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ó óà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243Ìò òòòFOR€APPELLANT€HALEóó:Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLISA€NAYLOR€(oralÏargument)ÌROBERT€S.€PETERSó óà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌSwafford,€Peters€&€Priestà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌ100€First€Avenue,€S.W.à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌWinchester,€TN€37398Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òC.€MICHAEL€LAYNEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òKENNETH€SHELTONó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à307€S.€WoodlandÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€147Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€37355ÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌJUDGEÇÑ7€ÅsXXdìXXdì7ÑÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThe€appellants,€œJeffery›€L.€Rigney€and€Herman€Eugene€Hale,€appeal€theÏsentences€imposed€by€the€Circuit€Court€of€Coffee€County€following€their€guiltyÏplea€to€theft€of€property€over€$1,000.€€Both€defendants€were€sentenced€to€fourÏyears,€provided€that€upon€the€expiration€of€Rigneyððs€service€of€nine€(9)€monthsÏand€Haleððs€service€of€twelve€(12)€months€in€the€county€jail,€they€could€serve€theÏremainder€of€their€sentences€in€the€community€corrections€program.€BothÏappeal€the€manner€in€which€they€are€to€serve€their€sentences,€claiming€that€theyÏshould€not€be€confined€for€any€period€of€time.€€Appellant€Rigney€also€assertsÏthat€a€sentence€of€four€(4)€years€is€excessive€and€inappropriate€under€the€1989ÏCriminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act.€€We€disagree€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòI.€€BACKGROUNDó óóóÌÌà àRigney€and€Hale,€along€with€Jacob€Hart,€Steve€Heifner€and€FranzÏHickertz,€were€involved€in€a€scheme€to€take€merchandise€from€the€Food€LionÏgrocery€store€in€Manchester.€€At€that€time€all€of€the€defendants€were€employeesÏof€that€store,€except€Hale.€€For€at€least€six€weeks,€Rigney,€Hart,€Heifner€andÏHickertz€would€smuggle€merchandise€from€the€store€and€then€take€thatÏmerchandise€to€Hale,€who€would€store€the€goods€in€a€warehouse€or€at€hisÏresidence.€€Apparently,€Hale€would€give€a€list€to€Rigney€or€Hart€requestingÍcertain€items€from€the€store.€€In€his€statement€to€the€police,€Rigney€confessedÏthat€the€items€were€taken€for€resale.Ìà àAll€five€defendants€were€indicted€for€theft€of€property€over€$10,000,€aÏClass€C€felony.€€Subsequently,€Rigney€and€Hale€pled€guilty€to€theft€of€propertyÏover€$1,000,€a€Class€D€felony.€€Both€were€sentenced€as€Range€I,€StandardÏOffenders.€€Although€the€trial€judge€sentenced€both€to€four€(4)€years,€Rigney€wasÏrequired€to€serve€nine€(9)€months€in€the€county€jail€before€being€put€onÏcommunity€corrections.€€Hale€was€ordered€to€serve€twelve€(12)€months€in€theÏcounty€jail€before€serving€the€remainder€of€his€sentence€on€communityÏcorrections.€€Each€defendant€was€also€required€to€pay€$8,000€in€restitution.€ÏBoth€are€appealing€their€sentences.ÌÌà@ àò òòòII.€€REVIEW€OF€SENTENCINGóóó óÌÌà àThis€Courtððs€review€of€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€is€òòde€novoóóÏwith€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€ThisÏpresumption€is€conditioned€upon€an€affirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€theÏtrial€judge€considered€the€sentencing€principles€and€all€relevant€facts€andÏcircumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,€169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€burdenÏis€upon€an€appealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentence€is€improper.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„401(d)€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.€€In€conducting€ourÏreview,€we€are€required,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(b),€toÏconsider€the€following€factors€in€sentencing:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€[t]he€evidence,€if€any,€received€at€the€trial€and€the€sentencingÏhearing;€(2)€[t]he€presentence€report;€(3)€[t]he€principles€ofÏsentencing€and€arguments€as€to€sentencing€alternatives;€(4)€[t]heÏnature€and€characteristics€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€(5)Ï[e]vidence€and€information€offered€by€the€parties€on€theÏenhancement€and€mitigating€factors€in€ðððð€40„35„113€and€40„35„114;€and€(6)€[a]ny€statement€the€defendant€wishes€to€make€in€hisÏown€behalf€about€sentencing.ÌÌÓÓà àIf€no€mitigating€or€enhancing€factors€for€sentencing€are€present,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(c)€provides€that€the€presumptive€sentence€shall€be€theÏminimum€sentence€within€the€applicable€range.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805ÏS.W.2d€785€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€However,€if€such€factors€do€exist,€a€trialÏcourt€should€start€at€the€minimum€sentence,€enhance€the€minimum€sentenceÏwithin€the€range€for€aggravating€factors€and€then€reduce€the€sentence€within€theÏrange€for€the€mitigating€factors.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210(e).€€No€particularÏweight€for€each€factor€is€prescribed€by€the€statute,€as€the€weight€given€to€eachÏfactor€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court€as€long€as€its€findings€areÏsupported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€229€(Tenn.€1986);€òòState€v.ÏSantiagoóó,€914€S.W.2d€116€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„210€Sentencing€Commission€Comments.Ìà àIf€our€review€reflects€that€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencingÏprocedure,€imposed€a€lawful€sentence€after€giving€due€consideration€andÏproper€weight€to€the€factors€and€principles€set€out€under€the€sentencing€law,Ïand€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€adequately€supported€by€the€record,€thenÏwe€may€not€modify€the€sentence€even€if€we€would€have€preferred€a€differentÏresult.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€at€789.ÌÌà@ àò òòòA.€Length€of€Sentence€„€RigneyóóÌó óÌà àAppellant€Rigney€asserts€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€imposing€theÏmaximum€sentence€of€four€(4)€years€for€this€Class€D€felony.€€Specifically,€heÏclaims€that€the€trial€judge€misapplied€enhancement€factors.€€Thus,€he€arguesÏthat€the€mitigating€factors€suggest€that€a€minimum€sentence€is€appropriate.Ìà àIn€a€written€Sentencing€Order,€the€trial€court€noted€the€enhancing€andÏmitigating€factors€that€were€applicable€to€Rigney.€€The€listed€enhancementÏfactors€were:€(1)€the€defendant€has€a€previous€history€of€a€criminal€conviction€inÏaddition€to€that€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriate€range;€and€(2)€theÏdefendant€was€a€leader€in€the€commission€of€an€offense€involving€two€or€moreÏactors.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1)€and€(2).€€The€trial€court€alsoÏconsidered€as€mitigating€factors€that:€(1)€the€defendantððs€criminal€conductÏneither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury;€(2)€the€defendant€assistedÏthe€authorities€in€uncovering€offenses€committed€by€other€persons€or€inÏdetecting€or€apprehending€other€persons€who€had€committed€the€offenses;€andÏ(3)€the€defendant€assisted€the€authorities€in€locating€or€recovering€any€propertyÏor€person€involved€in€the€crime.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1),€(9)€andÏ(10).Ìà àRigney€initially€argues€that€he€does€not€have€a€prior€conviction€andÏenhancement€factor€(1)€was€wrongly€applied.€€He€was€charged€in€1985€withÏgrand€larceny€and€was€put€on€pre„trial€diversion.€€Thus,€he€asserts€that€pre„trialÍdiversion€is€not€a€conviction€and€cannot€be€used€to€enhance€his€sentence.€€TheÏstate€does€not€dispute€this,€and€we€agree.€€Pre„trial€diversion€provides€aÏprocedural€alternative€to€prosecution€and€disposition€by€normal€methods.€ÏòòDearborne€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2d€259€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€trial€court€improperlyÏapplied€this€enhancement€factor.Ìà àRigney€further€claims€that€he€was€not€the€leader€in€this€scheme€andÏenhancement€factor€(2)€was€misapplied.€€He€quotes€the€Sentencing€OrderÏwherein€the€trial€judge€refers€to€Hale€and€Rigney€respectively€as€ð ðMaster„MindÏNumber€Oneðð€and€ð ðMaster„Mind€Number€Two.ðð€€Therefore,€Rigney€contends€thatÏbecause€the€trial€judge€specifically€found€that€Haleððs€role€was€more€culpableÏthan€his€own,€he€cannot€be€considered€the€leader€in€the€commission€of€anÏoffense€involving€two€or€more€actors.Ìà àThis€Court€has€previously€held€that€enhancement€for€being€a€leader€inÏthe€commission€of€an€offense€does€not€require€that€the€defendant€be€the€soleÏleader€but€only€that€he€be€"a"€leader.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€868€S.W.2d€729,€731Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(2).€€The€trial€courtÏproperly€applied€this€enhancement€factor.Ì€à àThe€trial€court€should€have€applied€enhancement€number€(6)€underÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114€in€that€the€amount€of€property€taken€from€theÏvictim€was€particularly€great.€This€Court,€in€conducting€our€òòde€novoóó€review,€isÏauthorized€to€consider€any€enhancement€factors€not€relied€upon€by€the€trialÏcourt€which€are€supported€by€the€record.€€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31,€34Ï(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879,€884„885€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.ÍJerniganóó,€929€S.W.2d€391,€397€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).Ìà àIt€is€apparent€from€the€videotaped€confessions€of€all€involved€and€theÏwritten€statement€of€Rigney€that€the€dollar€amount€of€the€property€stolen€farÏexceeded€$1,000.€€Rigney€estimated€that€his€part€in€the€theft€totaled€aroundÏ$15,000€„€$20,000.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Although€this€enhancement€factor€was€not€articulated€asÏsuch,€the€trial€judge€noted€in€the€Sentencing€Order€that€the€amount€of€propertyÏstolen€was€particularly€great.€€In€fact,€the€amount€of€property€stolen€approaches,Ïif€not€exceeds,€the€Class€C€theft€œamount€of€$10,000.›€€Therefore,€we€find€that€theÏamount€of€property€stolen€was€exceptionally€great,€and€this€could€be€consideredÏas€a€proper€enhancement€factor.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Barbara€D.€Frankóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï03C01„9209„CR„00303€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€December€22,€1993,€atÏKnoxville).Ìà àAdditionally,€the€trial€judge€noted€that€Rigney€was€an€employee€of€FoodÏLion€at€the€time€he€was€stealing€the€merchandise.€€As€such,€he€abused€aÏposition€of€private€trust.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(15).€€This€would€be€anÏappropriate€enhancement€factor€as€well.Ìà àPresumably,€the€trial€court€gave€little€weight€to€the€enumerated€mitigatingÏfactors€in€light€of€the€dollar€amount€of€property€that€was€stolen€and€Rigneyððs€roleÏin€the€overall€scheme.€€We€conclude€that€the€trial€court€gave€proper€weight€andÏconsideration€to€the€sentencing€factors€and€principles.€€Accordingly,€Rigney€hasÍfailed€to€overcome€the€presumption€of€correctness€afforded€the€trial€court€in€itsÏsentencing€determination.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àò òòòB.€€Manner€of€Sentenceóóó óÌÌà àBoth€appellants€contest€the€manner€in€which€they€are€to€serve€theirÏsentence.€€They€claim€that€incarceration€is€inappropriate€and€instead€suggestÏthat€they€should€receive€no€jail€time.Ìà àUnder€the€Criminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€of€1989,€trial€courts€areÏencouraged€to€use€alternatives€to€incarceration.€€An€especially€mitigated€orÏstandard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€C,€D€or€E€felony€is€presumed€to€be€aÏfavorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€options€in€the€absence€ofÏevidence€to€the€contrary.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6).€€A€trial€court€mustÏpresume€that€a€defendant€sentenced€to€eight€years€or€less€who€is€not€anÏoffender€for€whom€incarceration€is€a€priority€is€subject€to€alternative€sentencing.€ÏòòState€v.€Byrdóó,€861€S.W.2d€377,€379„380€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€It€is€furtherÏpresumed€that€€a€sentence€other€than€incarceration€would€result€in€successfulÏrehabilitation€unless€rebutted€by€sufficient€evidence€in€the€record.€€òòIdóó.€at€380.Ìà àIn€determining€whether€incarceration€is€appropriate,€a€trial€court€mayÏconsider€the€need€to€protect€society€by€restraining€a€defendant€having€a€longÏhistory€of€criminal€conduct,€the€need€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€ofÏthe€offense,€whether€confinement€is€particularly€appropriate€to€effectively€deterÏothers€likely€œto›€commit€similar€offenses,€and€whether€less€restrictive€measuresÍhave€often€or€recently€been€unsuccessfully€applied€to€the€defendant.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(1);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169.€ÏFurthermore,€the€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€should€beÏconsidered€in€determining€the€sentence€alternative€or€length€of€a€term€to€beÏimposed.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(5).Ìà àIn€the€present€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€appellants€wereÏessentially€the€leaders€in€the€plan€to€steal€from€Food€Lion.€€The€amount€ofÏproperty€taken€was€extensive.€€Furthermore,€these€thefts€were€ongoing€for€atÏleast€six€(6)€weeks€and€likely€would€have€continued€if€the€authorities€had€notÏdiscovered€the€fraudulent€scheme.Ìà àAdditionally,€the€trial€court€found€that€appellant€Hale€had€a€prior€criminalÏhistory.€€He€had€a€prior€conviction€for€passing€worthless€checks€up€to€$100€andÏfour€(4)€prior€convictions€for€driving€under€theœ€influence€of€an€intoxicant.Ìà àSignificantly,€the€trial€court€found€that€both€Rigney€and€Hale€gaveÏuntruthful€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing€and€neither€accepted€fullÏresponsibility€for€his€€actions.€€A€defendantððs€truthfulness€while€testifying€on€hisÏown€behalf€is€probative€of€his€attitude€towards€society€and€prospects€forÏrehabilitation€and€is€a€relevant€factor€in€the€sentencing€process.€€òòState€v.ÏDowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€301,€306€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€A€defendantððsÏð ðcredibility€and€willingness€to€accept€responsibility€for€his€crime€areÏcircumstances€€germane€to€his€rehabilitation€potential.ðð€€òòState€v.€Zeoliaóó,€928ÏS.W.2d€457,€463€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€atÏ306.Ìà àThere€is€no€mathematical€equation€to€be€utilized€in€determiningÏsentencing€alternatives.€€Not€only€should€the€sentence€fit€the€offense,€but€itÏshould€fit€the€offender€as€well.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„103(2);€òòState€v.€Boggsóó,Ï932€S.W.2d€467€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Indeed,€individualized€punishment€isÏthe€essence€of€alternative€sentencing.€€òòState€v.€Dowdyóó,€894€S.W.2d€at€305.€€InÏsummary,€sentencing€must€be€determined€on€a€case„by„case€basis,€tailoringÏeach€sentence€to€that€particular€defendant€based€upon€the€facts€of€that€caseÏand€the€circumstances€of€that€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€727€S.W.2d€at€235.Ìà àBoth€appellants€are€able€to€serve€the€majority€of€their€sentences€in€theÏcommunity€corrections€program€and€receive€the€benefit€of€alternativeÏsentencing.€€We€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€imposition€of€a€period€of€incarcerationÏwas€appropriate€for€both€appellants.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„36„106(f).€ÏTherefore,€this€issue€has€no€merit.œ× ƒ, ××  ×›ÌÌà àBecause€we€find€that€neither€issue€raised€by€the€appellants€has€anyÏmerit,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEó ó